The Lockout Thread: Good Things Come To Those Who Wait

I really think they can afford another lockout. In every sport where there has been a delay, strike or lockout, the fans have always come back. It might not happen in year 1, but it always happens. The fans will come back and the value of franchises will continue to increase (which is the real value to owners, more than the P+L).

I realize the owners asking for the players to accept 43% and 46% is overkill, but the players having 57% is equally as absurd. Other major sports are closer to 50% and some of those don't even have the guaranteed contracts like the NHL does. In the NFL, they cut guys loose mid contract all the time. I actually don't blame NFL players for holding out like they do wanting a new contract when owners/GMs can cut a guy loose and end the contract at any time.

Depending on what's defined as revenue (and of course, both sides have their own definition), the split could already be considered 50/50.

I could be wrong, but I believe the owners are trying to change the definition of what constitutes hockey revenue, while at the same time trying to make the split 43/46 - 57/54 in favor of the owners. And that's where the problem lies. In the owners new proposed definition of what constitutes "hockey revenue", the current 57/43 split in favor of the players is actually closer to 50/50.

So if they changed the definition AND asked players to take less than the current 57/43 split, it would no longer be technically 50/50. It WOULD be 50/50 of the newly defined definition of revenue, but in terms of what's considered revenue currently, a 50/50 split would favor the owners greatly.

Best analogy I can give (and I probably shouldn't, given how poorly these typically turn out) is if we had 50 apples that we split 57/43. Let's say 25 red, 20 are green, and 5 are yellow. In the current split, I'd get 30 apples and you'd get 20 apples, regardless of color.

Then we decide on a new deal to split the apples, 50/50. However, while at the same time we're working out this 50/50 deal, you decide that under a new definition, only green apples can be called "apples". Thus, we split the 20 green apples 50/50, while you keep the 30 remaining ones, giving a split closer to 20/80 rather than 50/50.

Basically, to get a 50/50 split, there needs to be a concession of one or the other on the owners side. They can either keep what constitutes revenue at it's current definition and get a 50/50 split, or they can change what constitutes revenue and accept the current 57/43 split. However, since the owners have the leverage, chances are they're going to be able to change the revenue definition and get a 50/50 split, leaving to some seriously unhappy players.

Depending on what's defined as revenue (and of course, both sides have their own definition), the split could already be considered 50/50.

I could be wrong, but I believe the owners are trying to change the definition of what constitutes hockey revenue, while at the same time trying to make the split 43/46 - 57/54 in favor of the owners. And that's where the problem lies. In the owners new proposed definition of what constitutes "hockey revenue", the current 57/43 split in favor of the players is actually closer to 50/50.

So if they changed the definition AND asked players to take less than the current 57/43 split, it would no longer be technically 50/50. It WOULD be 50/50 of the newly defined definition of revenue, but in terms of what's considered revenue currently, a 50/50 split would favor the owners greatly.

Best analogy I can give (and I probably shouldn't, given how poorly these typically turn out) is if we had 50 apples that we split 57/43. Let's say 25 red, 20 are green, and 5 are yellow. In the current split, I'd get 30 apples and you'd get 20 apples, regardless of color.

Then we decide on a new deal to split the apples, 50/50. However, while at the same time we're working out this 50/50 deal, you decide that under a new definition, only green apples can be called "apples". Thus, we split the 20 green apples 50/50, while you keep the 30 remaining ones, giving a split closer to 20/80 rather than 50/50.

Basically, to get a 50/50 split, there needs to be a concession of one or the other on the owners side. They can either keep what constitutes revenue at it's current definition and get a 50/50 split, or they can change what constitutes revenue and accept the current 57/43 split. However, since the owners have the leverage, chances are they're going to be able to change the revenue definition and get a 50/50 split, leaving to some seriously unhappy players.

That's way too many words and way too many unknown assumptions. In the end, I believe the players will have to come down some on the % of revenue they are currently receiving. Whether it be over time, through an escrow, or however, I can't see it staying at the current level.

And I agree it will result in some unhappy players, but I can't see any agreement by the owners that doesn't result in some unhappiness by players.

I don't understand it all, but if the collective bargaining agreement is expired, why would any waiver rules still be in effect?

I asked my buddy who's a lawyer this, and while he's not a big hockey fan he said it's likley because even tho there is a work stopage, the actual contracts, and rules that apply to said contracts, are still in effect.

"The NHL seems content to lock out the players if an agreement isn't reached this week, and we would like the Quebec Labour Board to step in and inform them that their lockout would be in direct violation of the Quebec labour laws," forward Erik Cole said in a statement.

To those who haven't followed it recently, there may be something happening.

Recently, the NHLPA went the legal route outside the NHL, basically saying that Canadian labor laws actually prevent the NHL from locking out the players, at least, the ones on Canadian teams. And they apparently had a legitimate case, since there was a meeting set up for tomorrow in front of the Alberta Labour Review board, with both the NHLPA and the NHL attending.

Well, now the meeting has been cancelled for reasons unknown. If the league concedes this point to the NHLPA, it'll be a big step toward getting the rest of the league out of lockout. After all, how many owners do you believe will be happy that the Montreal/Calgary/Edmonton/etc. players can train at the facilities, etc?

To my understanding, the option has always been there, but Goodenow (who was the NHLPA rep the previous two lockouts) never took that route.

Fehr takes over, he's got a better understanding of labor laws, he's had experience in lockouts before, he knows all his options.

There was a MLB lockout when Fehr was the player association rep for MLB back in 1990 and that included the Toronto Blue Jays and Montreal Expos. It didn't stop it then either. I don't know anything about Canadian Labor Laws, but it seems to me that the players lawyers are just trying to interpret something in their favor to help their negotiating stance.

This seems to indicate that as well.

Quote:

[Update, 4:30 p.m.: The Edmonton Journal reported that the NHL withdrew its application and Daly would not be appearing before the Alberta Labor Relations Board, according to a board spokesperson.

"I would characterize the NHLPA's legal filings in Canada to be unfortunate distractions," Daly said in an email to The Times. "We would all be better served if they were willing to get back to the table and bargain in good faith. Apparently, they aren't prepared to do that."]

If there was a meeting and the board had ruled in the player's favor, it would require an actual response from the NHL. If certain players are locked out and certain players aren't, that wouldn't sit well with a lot of the owners.

Daly's going to say anything that's going to make the NHL look better, just like Fehr's going to say anything that's going to make the NHLPA look better. I don't trust anything either says at the moment. They're both claiming "they're ready to negotiate", and both blame the other side for "stalling".

So other than this Sunday, there are two deadlines: One for the players, one for the owners.

The deadline for the players is what would have been the start of the regular season. After which, they start losing paychecks. I can't imagine that'll make too many players happy.

However, the deadline for the owners is about mid-December. The point where the Winter Classic becomes in danger of becoming cancelled. That's a major revenue stream for the NHL, and I can't see the NHL cancelling the season past that point.

So if the players can handle losing their paychecks until about mid-December, they'll have an upper hand in negotiations. If they can't, they'll have to concede to the owners demands.

That could be. I guess it depends on how close they are to an agreement. If the owners feel that they are still way off, I can't see them caving just to save the winter classic as the short term gain might not be enough to overcome what they want long term. Hopefully it doesn't even get to that point.

Do we know that Winter Classic is a cash cow, for sure? I've never seen numbers for it, so I don't know how much of a line in the sand it is.

I don't think it really is. I tried (briefly) looking to see if there was anything out there that says how much it makes because I can't believe 1 game is that huge of a deal from revenue compared to the other 1200+ regular season games, the playoffs, ASG, and the cup. I couldn't find any numbers.

Logically though, it can't be a very large % of the total league revenue, but it is one of the NHL's better marketing tool, especially with the NBC TV contract so it's probably key for that and hard to assess the revenue impact from that.

To my understanding, as far as ratings go, the Winter Classic numbers rival the SC Final numbers. I believe the WC has averaged around 4 million viewers since it's induction.

I also have to believe with

The amount of tickets sold to fill the football/baseball stadium
The concessions, etc.,
The new jerseys sold (the faux throwback ones that a lot of teams are doing)
And the stuff like the HBO 24

It's got to bring in a lot compared to a regular season game.

But yes, if the owners and the players are still miles apart by the time it comes along, it may not matter what they're losing. I'm optimistic that there will be some sort of compromise by that point though, with a small enough gap that can be bridged.

Oh, I have no doubt that it brings in a lot more compared to a regular season game there's still only 1 winter classic game and 1200+ regular season games, and up to 100+ playoff games (if all series went 7 games).

Bettman says NHL is not changing definition of HRR (hockey-related revenue) in their latest proposal.

Quote:

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

Gary Bettman said that his offer today ask for a reduction of 9% of players salaries. NHL asked for 24% in July.

I don't know what Fehr's talking about. If both those statements are true, that's major progress. That'd bring the current revenue split from 57/43 in favor of the players to a 48/52 split in favor of the owners.

It has nothing to do with maturity, it's just negotiating tactics. Unfortunately, with electronic media these days, everything is out for everyone to see. Both sides are just calling the other sides bluff and seeing how far they can take it.

It has nothing to do with maturity, it's just negotiating tactics. Unfortunately, with electronic media these days, everything is out for everyone to see. Both sides are just calling the other sides bluff and seeing how far they can take it.

It's negotiation tactics, but it assumes the other side has the negotiation skills of a child. The "take it or leave it" approach isn't going to work on either side, since neither side is run by a 7-year-old.

I'm sure the offers will get worse from both sides, but eventually, both sides will get their head out of their respective rear ends, and they'll come back to where they are currently. Not much of a threat.